1. Animadverting upon the order dated 17.2.2010 passed by the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, in I.A.Nos.6 and 11 of 2010 in A.S.No.55 of 1989, these civil revision petitions are focussed.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two civil revision petitions would run thus:

One Nanja Reddy filed the suit O.S.No.390 of 77 seeking partition. After contest, the trial Court decreed the suit, as against which, several appeals have been filed by various groups among the parties and those appeals were pending.

(ii) While so, the revision petitioners herein, who happened to be D51 to D60, filed the I.A.No.6 of 2010 before the appellate Court with the following prayer:

"to direct the respondents to get the leave of the Court by an application, before ever their counsel argues the new ground not set forth in the memorandum of appeal in A.S.No.159 of 1988, that D1 schedule properties in the suit in O.S.No.390 of 77 are joint family properties.

(extracted as such)

(iii) Whereas, the respondents 1 to 10 herein, who happened to be original D2 to D4, D28 to D32, filed the I.A.No